(Original post by politixx)
What policies do all the parties have on the foreign aid BUDGET?

I think the aid budget is a good thing but is currently inefficient and poorly spent. We need to reform our development assistance with bottom-up trade initiatives to encourage self-sufficiency and local economic growth. Currently, we hand huge cheques to corrupt leaders in the failed hope aid money will 'trickle down'.

(Original post by Rakas21)
Also Labour were hardly successful last term, whilst the Socialists got all there wishes Labour got 3.

Not all our wishes unfortunately, there was a blairite or two popping their heads in the door every now and then.
Meh generally a mutually beneficial coalition though as we agreed on a fair amount of stuff

(Original post by politixx)
What policies do all the parties have on the foreign aid BUDGET?

My personal view (as the Libers rarely have a party line), is that the aid is wildly misdirected as it stands, and we could do more to help many developing nations by opening up better trade links than by simply sending money to their often corrupt leaders. I would like to see us help support African farmers beyond their setup phase by negotiating free trade deals with african nations, while opening our markets by pulling out of the CAP, which costs the taxpayer money while simultaneously undoing the work our aid payments do in setting up farms.

Finally, what aid we give should be in terms of tools and talent (dedicated aid teams to achieve set objectives) rather than monetary payments. Setting up a teacher training college is a good project. Sending money to a government in the hope that they increase education spending is not.

(Original post by politixx)
What policies do all the parties have on the foreign aid BUDGET?

By emphasising the word budget for no apparent reason you misframe the question. As Birchington says, the foreign aid budget's actual amount is sort of irrelevant because it is spent poorly. Half of the money spent twice as intelligently would be exponentially more effective in helping the vulnerable around the world, which I personally think we should do. My personal view is that we should maintain a similar level to what the RL Gov. spends now but should alter the way in which it is spent. Less giving to countries with space programs and to military dictators, more giving to countries that make certain basic improvements using said money.

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
By emphasising the word budget for no apparent reason you misframe the question. As Birchington says, the foreign aid budget's actual amount is sort of irrelevant because it is spent poorly. Half of the money spent twice as intelligently would be exponentially more effective in helping the vulnerable around the world, which I personally think we should do. My personal view is that we should maintain a similar level to what the RL Gov. spends now but should alter the way in which it is spent. Less giving to countries with space programs and to military dictators, more giving to countries that make certain basic improvements using said money.

I emphasized the word budget because that is the part which effects us. We aren't poor people receiving this money so what happens to it is irrelevant to us we will never see its impact.

(Original post by politixx)
I emphasized the word budget because that is the part which effects us. We aren't poor people receiving this money so what happens to it is irrelevant to us we will never see its impact.

I guess? Kind of? I mean this is sort of ignoring a pretty large chunk of international relations theory and belies the fact that it is in the UK's interests to have less people across the world in poverty.

(Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
Hide from the hidden communists, they're everywhere in every left wing party and are proper naughty

At least this is more civil than the by-election. Shame I only had one vote really.

We could hang eachother (literally) and it would still be more civil than the by-election. Also, as the Greens are now sickenly socialist - don't see it myself - I will take the credit as an ex-socialist for the change.

I don't personally see the problem with security cameras and stop and search. It would actually be better if security cameras were better quality, rather than the grainy images that we get that often end up useless.

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
To give you your due the manifesto suggests you're trying to "independentise" your party from the old one

Does that mean however that the Liberal Party are abandoning the Social Democratic ideas for which they previously allegedly stood?

Hopefully voters will recognise that we're completely independent of the RL party and having a logo that is clearly eye-catching will hopefully direct people to our manifesto and strong policies.

I think it's important we have reasserted our support for liberalism instead of trying to balance social democratic policies in addition.

The HOC has three parties sharing various social democratic policies but was lacking one defending liberalism, so I think the Liberal Party now stands for something solid rather than the often confused platform of the Lib Dems.

Not trying to be awkward here (well maybe a little bit), but does a party that uses the word "force" several times in it's manifesto, really have any business calling itself "liberal"? But i suppose something truer to ideology, such as "The State Socialism Party" might be a little too Soviet for people's liking and doesn't really invoke the same warm and fuzzy feeling that "liberal" does. So 10/10 for propaganda and PR.

I'm curious, why have you renamed your party? Because you were too closely associated with the most unpopular party in the UK so close to a MHOC election? Personally, I think your party's priority of 'civil liberties' are a bit distant from what the average voter wants- a fair and transparent economy.

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
I'm curious, why have you renamed your party? Because you were too closely associated with the most unpopular party in the UK so close to a MHOC election? Personally, I think your party's priority of 'civil liberties' are a bit distant from what the average voter wants- a fair and transparent economy.

(Original post by Greenlaner)
Not trying to be awkward here (well maybe a little bit), but does a party that uses the word "force" several times in it's manifesto, really have any business calling itself "liberal"? But i suppose something truer to ideology, such as "The State Socialism Party" might be a little too Soviet for people's liking and doesn't really invoke the same warm and fuzzy feeling that "liberal" does. So 10/10 for propaganda and PR.

'Force' has no inherent party political meaning and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. An example of the usage in our manifesto is to 'force' banks to lend more to small business. Recalibrating the economy to a bottom-up rather than trickle down structure is historic socially liberal policy. Saying that using a particular word like 'force' disproves the stated political agenda of our party is laughable. The propagandist is more accurately you by decontextualising and distorting our language to make it appear to contradict our stated agenda.